“The treaty of Sevres was harsh and punishing.”
To what extent do you agree with this statement
Between 1914 and 1919 millions of lives were taken by the First World War. It created chaos socially, economically and politically leaving nations devastated. After the First World War a peace conference took place in Paris in which representatives from 27 nations across the globe gathered. This peace conference was to decide the fate of the defeated countries which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. While the situation in Europe held priority for most delegations the ‘Middle Eastern Question’ also required intense discussion. The Treaty of Sevres was drawn up at the San Remo conference, which dealt with the fate of the Ottoman Empire, in April 1920. This treaty primarily abolished the empire and eradicated Turkish sovereignty. It also created an autonomous Kurdish zone and granted Armenia independence. Economically, capitulations were reintroduced and the allies took control of the Empire’s finances through the Ottoman Bank. It has been argued that the Treaty of Sevres was too harsh and that disaster was inevitable as a result. This essay will look at certain aspects of the treaty which contribute both for and against the argument. It will look mainly at the Ottoman Empire as a whole; from the partitioning of the land which neglected to acknowledge ‘true’ Turkish territory to the effect of the allied total control over the economy through the Finance Commission. Contrastingly, the Treaty of Sevres has been seen by some as realistic considering the circumstances. As well as this, the treaty complied to a certain extent with the idea of self determination. This affected the Kurds and created the democratic republic of Armenia by granting autonomy, independence and international recognition to these zones. The above points are all valid when considering how the Treaty of Sevres should be viewed in the 21st century. The Treaty of Sevres...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document